Bryn Mawr College

Scholarship, Research, and Creative Work at Bryn Mawr

College
Psychology Faculty Research and Scholarship Psychology

2014

Security of attachment to spouses in late life:

Concurrent and prospective links with cognitive
and emotional wellbeing
Robert J. Waldinger

Shiri Cohen

Marc S. Schulz
mschulz@brynmawr.edu

Judith A. Crowell

Let us know how access to this document benefits you.

Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.brynmawr.edu/psych_pubs
Part of the Psychology Commons

Custom Citation
Waldinger, R. J., Cohen, S., Schulz, M. S., & Crowell, J. A. (2014). Security of attachment to spouses in late life: Concurrent and
prospective links with cognitive and emotional wellbeing. Clinical Psychological Science August 18, 2014 2167702614541261.

This paper is posted at Scholarship, Research, and Creative Work at Bryn Mawr College. http://repository.brynmawr.edu/psych_pubs/32

For more information, please contact repository@brynmawr.edu.

 1

To be published in Clinical Psychological Science

Security of attachment to spouses in late life:

Concurrent and prospective links with cognitive and emotional wellbeing

Robert J. Waldinger a

Shiri Cohen a

Marc S. Schulz b

Judith A. Crowell c

a
Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School
b
Department of Psychology, Bryn Mawr College
c
Department of Psychiatry, Stony Brook University
 2

Abstract

Social ties are powerful predictors of late-life health and wellbeing. Although many adults

maintain intimate partnerships into late life, little is known about mental models of attachment

to spouses and how they influence aging. Eighty-one elderly heterosexual couples (162

individuals) were interviewed to examine the structure of attachment security to their partners

and completed measures of cognition and wellbeing concurrently and 2.5 years later. Factor

analysis revealed a single factor for security of attachment. Higher security was linked

concurrently with greater marital satisfaction, fewer depressive symptoms, better mood, and

less frequent marital conflicts. Greater security predicted lower levels of negative affect, less

depression, and greater life satisfaction 2.5 years later. For women, greater security predicted

better memory 2.5 years later and attenuated the link between frequency of marital conflict

and memory deficits. Late in life, mental models of attachment to partners are linked to

wellbeing concurrently and over time.

 3

Security of attachment to spouses in late life:

Concurrent and prospective links with cognitive and emotional wellbeing

The search for the underpinnings of wellbeing in late life takes on new urgency as the

Baby-Boomer generation begins to swell the ranks of those living into old age. Accumulating

evidence demonstrates that living longer and aging well are not solely dependent on advances

in medicine but are strongly linked to the presence and quality of human relationships. A recent

meta-analysis of 148 prospective studies of links between social connection and longevity

indicated a 50% increased likelihood of survival for participants with stronger social ties (Holt-

Lunstad, Smith, & Layton, 2010). This meta-analysis confirms the earlier influential conclusions

of House, Landis, and Umberson (1988, p. 541) that “social relationships, or the relative lack

thereof, constitute a major risk factor for health – rivaling the effect of well established health

risk factors such as cigarette smoking, blood pressure, blood lipids, obesity and physical

activity.”

But what exactly is it about human relationships that impacts aging? Social relationships

have been measured primarily in two ways – by gauging the breadth of one’s social networks or

frequency of social contacts (e,g., Vogt, Mullooly, Ernst, Pope, & Hollis, 1992; Waldinger &

Schulz, 2010), and by asking about subjective perceptions of connectedness, loneliness, or

support (e.g., Hawkley & Cacioppo, 2010). Analysis of social networks gives priority to social

behaviors over subjective experience of relationship quality, and reports of feeling lonely or

connected do not typically account for the social context in which the social exchange takes
 4

place. A third window on human relationships that bridges the domains of subjectivity and

behavior is that of mental models (Craik, 1943; Johnson-Laird, 1983) – internal representations

of external reality that shape a broad range of experiences and behaviors, from how we assess

probable outcomes (Tversky and Kahneman, 1983), to how we make political judgments

(Westen, Blagov, Harenski, Kilts, & Hamann, 2006), to how we solve math problems (Fischbein,

Deri, Nello, & Marino, 1985). Mental models typically have both explicit features that are

conscious and implicit features that operate outside of awareness (Johnson-Laird, 1983).

Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969) provides a life-span framework for understanding

mental models of close relationships that links subjective experience with behavior and

incorporates both consciously-held beliefs and beliefs that are largely out of awareness.

Attachment models have been the topic of much research, beginning with how infants develop

cognitive representations of close relationships. These representations guide the infant’s

patterns of careseeking and maintaining attachment to caregivers who are essential to the

child’s physical survival and psychological development (Ainsworth, 1979). In adult life, secure

attachment to intimate partners has been linked with health, stress management, and

emotional wellbeing (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007; Pietromonaco, DeBuse, & Powers, 2013;

Treboux, Crowell & Waters, 2004).

Mental models of attachment relationships are hypothesized to be essential guides for

safety and survival across the life span (Ainsworth, 1985; Bowlby, 1969). Based on repeated

interactions with caregivers, children develop scripts that shape expectations about and

behavior in close relationships (Main, Kaplan & Cassidy, 1985). These scripts guide children to
 5

behave in ways that help them maintain proximity to caregivers. Reliable, responsive caregiving

is thought to enable children to develop secure attachment scripts characterized by comfort

with closeness and the willingness to depend on others (Waters & Waters, 2006). By contrast,

unresponsive or inconsistent caregiving is thought to foster insecure attachment, manifested in

anxiety about abandonment and/or avoidance of closeness (Bowlby, 1969). The resulting

schemas are relatively enduring (Scharfe & Bartholomew, 1994), persist into adulthood

(Waters, Merrick, Treboux, Crowell & Albersheim, 2000), and shape expectations, experience

and behavior in romantic partnerships (Meyers & Landsberger, 2002). Secure attachment in

intimate adult relationships is associated with greater relationship satisfaction (Cobb, Davila &

Bradbury, 2001), a stronger sense of intimacy (Collins & Feeney, 2004), and more frequent

seeking and giving of support to partners (Simpson, Rholes & Nelligan, 1992).

Attachment theory predicts that, as with children and younger adults, older adults with

secure mental models of attachment are comfortable depending on others and confident of

their willingness to be supportive in times of need. Reliance on family attachments to meet

basic needs for emotional and instrumental support increases with age as older adults

withdraw from casual social networks (Carstensen, 1992; Wrzus, Hanel, Wagner, & Neyer,

2013) and retirement results in the loss of workplace friends and acquaintances (Damman,

Henkens, & Kalmijn, 2013). Antonucci and colleagues (2004) have shown that central

attachment figures remain relatively constant across much of adulthood, and that in the 8th and

9th decades of life these figures are most commonly spouses and children.
 6

Because aging raises the specter of physical and cognitive decline and interpersonal loss,

growing older may heighten concerns about the availability of important others in times of

need, making attachment cognitions potentially even more central to wellbeing. Yet older

adults’ attachment representations and how they relate to psychological and social functioning

have received little empirical attention. In one of the rare studies examining age and

attachment in close relationships, Zhang and Labouvie-Vief (2004) found that older adults self-

reported more secure, more avoidant, and less anxious attachment styles than younger adults.

What little is known about older adults’ attachment models is derived from self-report

measures designed for younger adults (e.g., Magai, Consedine, Gillespie, O’Neal & Vilker, 2004).

This limits the study of late-life attachment in two important ways. First, the self-report

measures designed for younger adults ask about what one is “generally” like in romantic

relationships. Many adults currently in their 70s and 80s did not have other significant romantic

relationships prior to marriage, and those that did may have trouble recollecting experiences

from many decades in the past. Second, although consciously-held beliefs about relationships

are important determinants of functioning, people are often motivated by attitudes that are

outside of awareness but that nonetheless shape their experience of and behavior in intimate

partnerships (Crowell & Treboux, 1995).

In younger adults, research demonstrates that these mental models of romantic

attachment matter (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). Less secure attachment to intimate partners is

associated with more negative affect (Caldwell & Shaver, 2012), greater loneliness (Bernardon ,

Babb, Hakim-Larson & Gragg, 2011),and less satisfaction with life (Hinnen, Sanderman &
 7

Sprangers, 2009). In the interpersonal realm, less secure romantic attachment is associated

with lower marital satisfaction (Givertz, Woszidlo, Segrin & Knudson, 2013) and less adaptive

responses to marital conflict (Barry & Lawrence, 2013).

Associations between security of attachment and emotional wellbeing may be

particularly consequential in late life, when cognition appears more vulnerable to interpersonal

stressors. Loneliness and social isolation have been linked with earlier and more severe

cognitive decline (Tilvis et al., 2004; Wilson et al., 2007). Cacioppo and Hawkley (2009) have

pointed to several mechanisms that may underlie these associations, including increased

activation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, increased inflammation in the brain, and

reduced cognitive stimulation when one is not socially engaged. Of particular relevance to

attachment security is their hypothesis that social isolation and loneliness may result in chronic

surveillance for threat, placing increased cognitive demands on the brain and thereby reducing

available resources for creative adaptation

In the current study, we assessed models of attachment to spouses in a group of

couples in their 70s and 80s, using a semi-structured interview designed specifically to tap

implicit as well as explicit aspects of attachment. We developed a rapid coding system to assess

security of attachment in intimate relationships and applied this to 162 interviews to examine

how attachment concerns manifest in late life. We examined associations between late-life

attachment and psychosocial functioning concurrently and after 2.5 years. Because security of

attachment incorporates both the subjective experience of connectedness to one’s intimate

partner (loneliness) and behavior toward that partner (social connection), we hypothesized that
 8

security of attachment would be positively linked with psychosocial and cognitive functioning in

our older couples.

Method

Participants

The sample for this study consisted of 81 elderly Caucasian heterosexual couples. The

male participants were part of a 75-year longitudinal study of adult development that began

when they were adolescents. Fifty-one men were part of the original Harvard College cohort,

which consisted of 268 college sophomores recruited between 1939 and 1942, for intensive

multidisciplinary study of psychological health (Heath, 1945; Vaillant, 1977). Thirty men were

members of the Inner City cohort, which consisted of 456 boys born between 1925 and 1932

(age 14 +/- 2 years at study intake) selected from disadvantaged families in low-income Boston

neighborhoods to serve as the non-delinquent control group in a study of juvenile delinquency

(Glueck & Glueck, 1950). Participants from both cohorts have been assessed using interview

and questionnaire techniques at regular intervals over 75 years.

Beginning in 2003, both cohorts of men and their intimate partners were invited to

participate in a study of late-life marriage. A total of 201 surviving members of the original

sample had partners. To be eligible, couples had to have been living together for a minimum of

one year. In addition, both members of the couple had to score above 25 (indicating minimal or

no cognitive impairment) on the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS, Brandt,

Spencer, & Folstein, 1988) and be in sufficient physical health to be able to complete the in-

home and follow-up telephone interview procedures described below. Forty-four couples were

unable to participate because one or both partners could not complete assessments due to
 9

physical or cognitive impairment. Five couples completed part but not all of the assessments.

Two couples could not be contacted, and two did not meet the criterion of living together for a

minimum of 12 months. An additional 67 couples declined to participate. The most common

reason given for refusal was a wish to preserve the privacy of their relationship.

Analyses indicate that those who participated did not differ from those who did not on a

range of demographic and health variables. T-tests revealed that the 67 eligible men who

declined to participate in the study did not differ significantly from the 81 men who

participated with respect to age, number of years of education, income at ages 45-55, health at

age 70 based on internist’s rating of medical records (for details, see Vaillant, 1979), number of

previous divorces, length of current relationship, or marital satisfaction at age 65-75. All

participants were Caucasian. Mean age was 80.8 years for men (SD =3.4) and 75.7 years for

women (SD = 6.8). The mean length of these relationships was 40.8 years (SD = 19.4). As in any

longitudinal study, there was participant attrition across the 2.5 years between Time 1 and

Time 2 assessments. Attrition varied slightly depending on the variable (sample sizes for each

variable noted in Table 1). Attrition was lower for male participants (the original members of

the Study) than for female spouses: 80% of men and 69% of women provided data at both time

points.

The Partners Health Care Human Research Committee approved the study, and written

informed consent was obtained from all participants for each wave of the study.

Procedure

The first wave of assessments for this study took place in 2003-2006. During a home

visit, an audiotaped semi-structured interview assessing security of attachment to partner was

 10

administered separately to each member of the couple by different interviewers, along with

self-report questionnaires assessing marital satisfaction and depressive symptoms. Following

the home visits, men and women were individually interviewed by telephone on 8 consecutive

evenings to obtain a reliable “snapshot” of day-to-day psychosocial functioning. Telephone

interviewers varied across the 8 days and were different from those who collected data during

home visits. The interviewers were unaware of all prior data on participants, including

responses on previous days of telephone interviewing. Participants were assured that their

responses would remain confidential (including from their spouses) and were asked to be in a

location during telephone interviews where their responses could not be overheard by others.

Interviews lasted 15-20 minutes and focused on the participants’ activities during the previous

24 hours. Most interviews were conducted around the dinner hour each day. The mean

number of interviews completed by participants over 8 days was 7.6 (SD = 0.73).

The second wave of assessments took place on average 2.5 years after the first (2007-

2009; mean interval = 29.5 months, SD =8.1). Couples were again visited in their homes by

Study interviewers, and participants completed questionnaires assessing depression, positive

and negative affect, and satisfaction with life. In addition, participants completed a battery of

neuropsychological tests to assess cognitive functioning.

Measures

Time 1 Assessments

Security of attachment. Security of attachment was measured using the Current

Relationship Interview (CRI; Crowell & Owens, 1996). This 45-60 minute semi-structured
 11

interview assesses adults’ specific representations of the attachment bond formed within the

respondent’s current couple relationship. The interview asks participants for adjectives

describing their relationship with their partner and illustrative incidents supporting those

adjectives. For example, if the participant describes the marriage as “loving,” he/she is asked

for two incidents that illustrate loving aspects of the relationship. The participant is also asked

about factors that have influenced the relationship and the effects of the relationship on his or

her personal development. The scoring system parallels the scoring system used in the Adult

Attachment Interview (AAI; Main & Goldwyn, 1988) in that experience with the partner,

discourse style, and believability or coherence of the description of the relationship are rated

by coders using a number of scales (Crowell & Owens, 1996; Crowell, Treboux, & Waters, 2002;

Owens et al., 1995). Based on the coding procedure used by Crowell and colleagues (Crowell &

Owens, 1996), raters read each transcribed interview twice and used the following eleven

rating scales to characterize the individual’s behavior, the partner’s behavior, and the

individual’s discourse style: relationship satisfaction, loving behavior, comfort with care-

seeking, comfort with care-giving, valuing intimacy, derogation of attachment, derogation of

partner, rejection of attachment, fear of loss, anxiety about dependence, and coherence of

narrative. Coherence reflects the participant’s ability to present an integrated, believable, and

consistent account of his or her own and the partner’s attachment-related behaviors and their

meaning. Ratings were made using Likert-type scales ranging from 0 to 9 and reflect the

reported behavior and thoughts of the participant with respect to attachment.

Four coders who were unaware of other participant data were trained to reliability with

an expert coder (S. Cohen) in consultation with the author of the instrument (J. Crowell).
 12

Coding required on average one hour per transcript. All four coders coded a randomly-selected

subsample of 25 CRI transcripts (15% of total) to determine inter-rater reliability. Agreement

among the four coders on all 11 scales was r=.7 or higher. All remaining transcripts were coded

by at least two coders, and to increase reliability, coder ratings within two points were

averaged to arrive at a final score on each scale. Discrepancies of 3 points or greater were

resolved by averaging a 3rd coder’s rating with the other two. Because the midpoint of the

coherence scale was the cutoff for secure attachment, two-point discrepancies that spanned

the midpoint on the coherence scale were also resolved using a 3rd coder.)

The CRI has good psychometric properties (Ravitz, Maunder, Hunter, Sthankiya &

Lancee, 2010), including stability over 18 months (Crowell, Treboux & Waters, 2002) and

discriminant validity (Owens et al., 1995; Crowell et al., 2002; Treboux, Crowell & Waters,

2004). In addition, the CRI is associated in predicted ways with attachment ratings using the AAI

and with self-reports of relationship quality, satisfaction, violence, and divorce (Treboux et al.,

2004). Predictive validity of the CRI is supported by the finding that security of attachment

predicted a decrease in relationship conflict over the first six years of marriage (Treboux et al.,

2004).

Marital satisfaction. Marital satisfaction was measured using the Short Marital

Adjustment Test (Locke & Wallace, 1959), a widely-used 16-item self-report questionnaire.

Respondents are asked to rate the extent to which they and their partners agree or disagree on

common subjects (e.g., sexual relations, handling of family finances), with additional questions

on topics such as how they handle disagreements and how happy they are overall with their

relationship (range “very unhappy” to “perfectly happy”). The measure has good internal
 13

reliability, test-retest stability, and discriminant validity (Freeston & Plechaty, 1997). Higher

scores reflect greater satisfaction with the marriage. Scores can range from 0 to 163 and those

below 100 are considered to be indicative of clinically significant marital distress (Christensen &

Heavey, 1999; Gottman, 1994).

Depressive symptoms. Depressive symptoms at Time 1 were assessed using the Center

for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D). The CES-D is a widely-used 20-item scale

used as a self-report of the presence of depressive symptoms. Each item asks about the

frequency of depressive symptoms during the past week. The CES-D score ranges from 0 to 60,

with higher scores indicating more depression. A score of 16 or above is considered to be

evidence of clinically significant depression (Lewinsohn, Seeley, Roberts, & Allen, 1997). The

CES-D has been shown to have good reliability and validity as a screening measure for

depression in the general population (Radloff, 1977).

Mood over 8 days. On 8 consecutive days, participants were asked, “How are you feeling

today?” and responses were on a 7-point Likert-type scale with the following anchors: 1=very

unhappy, 2= moderately unhappy, 3=a little unhappy, 4=neither happy nor unhappy, 5=a little

happy, 6=moderately happy, and 7=very happy. Mood and related constructs (e.g., quality of

life) are often measured with single items using Likert-type scales (Diener, 2000; Sandvik,

Diener, & Seidlitz, 1993), and there is evidence for the validity and reliability of single item

measures (Veenhoven & Kalmijn, 2005; Yang, 2008; Zimmerman & Arunkumar, 1994). The 8

daily ratings were averaged to derive a typical daily mood for the 8-day period.

Frequency of marital disagreements over 8 days. On each of the 8 evenings of daily

telephone interviews, participants were asked, “In the last 24 hours, did you have a
 14

disagreement with your partner, even about something small?” Participants answered “yes”

or “no,” and positive responses were summed and averaged over 8 days to create a score

between 0 and 1 reflecting the percent of days on which they reported disagreements.

Time 2 Assessments

Positive and negative affect. Positive and negative affect over the previous week was

measured using the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS, Watson, Clark & Tellegen,

1988), a 20-item self-administered questionnaire. Participants are asked to rate on 5-point

Likert-type scales the degree to which they have felt each emotion on the list during the past

week. Responses are summed separately for the positive affect (PA) and negative affect (NA)

scales (10 items each) and range from 10 to 50 for each scale. In this sample, alpha reliability is

.88 for the PA scale and .85 for the NA scale with an intercorrelation of -.22. The PANAS

demonstrates test-retest reliability, and the NA scale correlates with similar measures of

negative affect (Watson et al., 1988).

Depressive symptoms. Depressive symptoms at Time 2 were measured using the

Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS, Yesavage et al., 1983), a 30-item “yes/no” questionnaire

administered by a trained examiner. An overall depressive symptom score was calculated by

summing the number of items endorsed. Validity of the GDS has been demonstrated by good

agreement with depression ratings using the Research Diagnostic Criteria, the Zung Self-Rating

Depression Scale, and the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (Yesavage et al., 1983). The

measure has good internal consistency and test-retest reliability.

 15

Satisfaction with life. Life satisfaction was measured using the Satisfaction with Life

Scale (SWLS, Diener, Emmons, Larson & Griffin, 1985). The SWLS is a self-administered

questionnaire that asks participants to rate how much they agree or disagree with five life

satisfaction statements on 7-point Likert-type scales. Scores are summed to generate a total

score that ranges from 5 to 35. In this sample, the coefficient alpha was .85. This measure

correlates with peer- and family-reported life satisfaction (Pavot, Diener, Colvin & Sandvik,

1991).

Memory. Verbal episodic memory was assessed using the 16-item Free and Cued

Selective Reminding Test (FCSRT, Morris et al., 1989). The FCSRT is designed specifically to

discriminate true memory deficits from attentional and processing difficulties. Participants

search a card containing four pictures of items (e.g., grapes, toaster) that go with unique

category cues (e.g., fruit, kitchen appliances). After all four items are identified, immediate cued

recall of just those four items is tested. After controlled learning has been completed for all 16

items, there are three test trials consisting of free recall, followed by cued recall for those items

not retrieved using free recall. The sum of free and cued recall on each trial is called total recall.

Controlled learning remediates the mild retrieval deficits that occur in many healthy elderly

individuals but has only modest benefits in patients with dementia (Grober, Sanders, Hall &

Lipton, 2010). The total number of items recalled during free and cued recall is used in analyses.

Executive Functioning. Executive functioning was assessed using the Trail Making Test

Part B, Controlled Oral Word Association (F-A-S) Test and the Category Generation (CAT) Test

(Monsch, Bondi, Butters, & Salmon, 1992). The Trail Making Test Part B is a test of visual

attention and task switching that consists of numbers and letters that are to be connected in
 16

numerical and alphabetical order. Participants are timed and scored for time taken and number

of errors made. Semantic and phonemic/lexical knowledge were measured using the Controlled

Oral Word Association Test Letter (FAS) and Category (CAT) (COWAT). In these tests,

participants generate words that begin with the letters F, A, and S and report items within the

categories of Animals, Vegetables, and Fruits for one minute each. The words generated by the

participant are summed for the FAS and the CAT; these along with the Trail Making Part B score

were z-scored, and the mean used as the index of executive function. In this sample, the

correlations among the 3 scores were as follows: rfas-cat = .56, rfas-trails b = .34, rcat–trails b = .35;

p<.001 for all correlations. These three measures are commonly used as indices of executive

functioning (Newman, Trivedi, Bendlin, Ries & Johnson, 2007; Grober et al., 2008), and previous

studies indicate that the combined scores showed greater sensitivity, specificity, and predictive

value than each score alone (Monsch, 1992; Hedden et al., 2012).

Results

Means and standard deviations for variables indexing psychosocial functioning are

presented in Table 1. To examine the possibility that missing data on particular variables might

result in sampling bias, we examined links between the presence of missing data and key

demographic variables: age, membership in the College or Inner City cohort, years of formal

education, and length of the marital relationship. Of 34 analyses conducted for each gender

using these background variables, only one significant finding emerged – a small positive

relation between women’s years of education and likelihood of missing data on mood and

frequency of marital disagreements derived from daily diary assessments over 8 days. These

analyses indicate minimal non-random missingness. Full information maximum likelihood

 17

estimation (FIML) as implemented in AMOS (v. 17.0) was used in all principal analyses because

FIML results in unbiased parameter estimates and appropriate standard errors when data are

missing at random. FIML estimates are generally superior to those obtained with listwise

deletion or other ad hoc methods, even when the missing-at-random assumption is not fully

met (Acock, 2005). Many of the psychosocial functioning variables under study were

moderately inter-correlated both within and across assessment waves (see Table 2).

The structure of attachment in late life. Two of the 11 coded attachment variables –

dependency and fear of loss – had truncated ranges, such that few participants were rated as

unduly concerned about these issues (only 5% were rated as manifesting maladaptive

dependency, and less than 10% were judged to be fearful of loss out of proportion with actual

life factors). Coders were trained to rate these scales accounting for actual circumstances in

participants’ lives that might warrant fear of loss and related anxiety about dependence. Scores

on these variables therefore reflect coders’ judgments about the presence of inappropriate or

irrational fears not tied to actual life factors. Because of the truncated range on these variables,

they were excluded from analyses. Using data from all 162 individuals, we conducted principal

axis factoring to identify the underlying structure of the remaining 9 variables coded from the

attachment interviews. These variables were subjected to principal axis factoring with

orthogonal rotation (using varimax criterion). Both an examination of the scree plot and the use

of the criterion of Eigenvalues > 1 revealed one factor that accounted for 69% of the total

variance. Factor loadings for eight of the nine attachment variables were at or above the .71

“excellent” level identified by Comry and Lee (1992): loving behavior (.95), valuing of intimacy

(.89), satisfaction in relationship (.85), rejecting of attachment (.84), comfort with careseeking
 18

(.83), comfort with caregiving (.82), derogation of partner (.78), and coherence of narrative

(.71). The lowest factor loading was .57 for derogation of attachment, still in the “good” range.

We labeled this factor “Attachment Security.” Individual scale scores for each participant were

derived by taking the mean of all 9 items (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). We considered other

factor structures, including a two-factor solution (with orthogonal rotation) that might

distinguish between the dimensions of anxiety and avoidance that emerge in attachment

questionnaire data from younger adults. We also explored non-orthogonal rotation methods

(e.g., direct oblimin). However, no support was found in any of these analyses for a multi-

factorial solution. The Attachment Security scale represents a spectrum from greater security

(valuing of intimacy, comfort with care-seeking and caregiving, high coherence of narrative) and

less derogation (of the partner and the importance of the relationship) at one end, to less

security and greater derogation at the other. The Attachment Security scale score was used in

all subsequent analyses.

Links between security of attachment and psychosocial functioning. Correlational links

between security of attachment to partner and psychosocial functioning were examined and

are presented in Table 3. For both men and women, greater security of attachment was linked

concurrently with greater self-reported marital satisfaction, better mood averaged over 8 days,

and fewer marital conflicts over 8 days. For men, greater security of attachment was also

associated with less concurrent depressive symptomatology. Two and one-half years later,

more secure attachment predicted less negative affect, less depressive symptomatology, and

greater satisfaction with life for both men and women. These correlations generally ranged

from medium to large in magnitude, with marital satisfaction the largest at r=.61 and .73 for
 19

men and women respectively. For women, greater security of attachment also predicted better

memory functioning 2.5 years later. No such association was present for men, and security of

attachment did not predict executive functioning for men or for women.

Security of attachment as a buffer of the effects of stress on late-life memory. In light of

recent research suggesting differential susceptibility of older adults to the effects of stress on

cognitive functioning (e.g., Pardon & Rattray, 2008), we considered the possibility that secure

attachment might be a buffer against the effects of everyday stressors on late-life cognitive

functioning. One such stressor – frequency of daily marital disagreements – was significantly

correlated with memory functioning for women but not for men (rwomen = -.27, p = .05; rmen = -

.17, p = .19). A product term (security of attachment X frequency of disagreements with

partner) was calculated and entered into a regression model predicting memory (FCSRT score),

with security of attachment, frequency of disagreements with partner, and age entered into the

model as covariates. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 4. Of note is that for

women the interaction term was a significant predictor of memory independent of the direct

effects of security of attachment and frequency of marital disagreements, and the overall

model predicted 33% of the variance in memory scores across the women in this sample. No

significant interaction was found for men. Further analysis indicated that for those women

rated as more securely attached to their partners, frequency of marital conflicts was not related

to memory 2.5 years later. By contrast, for those women rated as less securely attached, more

frequent marital conflicts predicted poorer memory functioning 2.5 years later.
 20

Discussion

Understanding the aging process depends in part on clarifying the nature of the links

between healthy aging and personal relationships. This study suggests that it is not only what

we think but also how we think about our connections to intimate partners that relates to

wellbeing as we age. The structure and coherence of mental models of close relationships,

along with judgments about the degree to which one can rely on an intimate partner for

support, may be especially important as we age, yet this aspect of older adults’ experience has

received relatively little empirical attention. This study assesses security of attachment to

intimate partners in older adults using an interview that is appropriate to both the age and the

life experience of individuals who are now in their 70s and 80s. Unlike the self-report measures

that access consciously-held beliefs, this interview elicits rich reports about perceptions of and

behaviors in relationships from which coders can reliably assess implicit as well as explicit

elements of older adults’ models of attachment to their partners. In this respect, the study

offers a new window on older adults’ mental models of intimate relationships and their links

with healthy aging.

An important goal of this study was to identify what attachment to an intimate partner

looks like in old age. Do the same domains of security, avoidance, and anxiety that characterize

models of attachment in children and younger adults emerge in the interviews of older adults?

The emergence of a single cohesive Attachment Security factor in our sample raises the

possibility that there may be differences in the structure of attachment in older adults. The nine

attachment variables grouped together on a single dimension that at one extreme entailed

coherence in the account of the relationship, valuing of intimacy and the partner, and comfort
 21

with caregiving and careseeking. The other extreme of the scale was characterized by narratives

about the marriage that were less convincing and coherent, by derogation of the partner, and

by dismissing the importance of the partner and the relationship. Individuals who expressed

unmet needs for support, intimacy, and closeness scored low on this scale, as did individuals

who said that such needs were not present or important.

Our findings suggest a more unitary structure of insecure attachment in older adults

than is the case in younger adults. Two perspectives afforded by old age may converge to shape

this more unidimensional manifestation of insecure attachment to partners in late life – (1)

older adults look back on a lifetime of accumulated experiences of intimacy, and (2) they have a

heightened awareness of mortality. With regard to looking back on the course of intimacy,

some of the least happy individuals in this study longed for intimate connection, but in

reviewing their marriages, they appeared resigned to the futility of expecting it from their

partners. When asked whether he turns to his wife when emotionally upset, one octogenarian

in his 2nd unhappy marriage responded, “No. Definitely not. I would get no sympathy. I would

be told that it’s a sign of weakness.” While not minimizing the importance of attachment needs

(as is the case among avoidantly-attached individuals), some older adults appear to have

resigned themselves to the prospect of never having those needs met by their partners. Hope

of intimacy may no longer spring eternal for such individuals, and resignation or acceptance

could be a factor in the apparent reduction in attachment anxiety seen both in the Zhang and

Labouvie-Vief (2004) study and in this sample.

The second factor that may shape attachment in late life is mortality salience. Compared

with their younger counterparts, older individuals face the more imminent prospect of their
 22

own and their partners’ physical decline and death, thus creating a different context in which

relationships are evaluated. Empirical studies in experimental social psychology (e.g.,

Greenberg at al, 2003; Mikulincer, Florian, & Hirschberger, 2003) find that people manage

anxiety about their own mortality using specific strategies, including adhering to a cultural

worldview that provides a sense of life’s meaning and purpose, and fostering a sense of

connectedness and attachment security in close relationships. Mikulincer and Shaver (2012)

have proposed that when proximity-seeking is inhibited by insecure attachment, individuals are

left defenseless in the face of mortality concerns, and these feelings must be managed in other

ways. Those who cannot find comfort in close relationships might manage anxiety about death

with other forms of self-protection, such as greater investment in a cultural worldview (e.g.,

religion) that enhances life’s meaning and purpose. For example, the study participant quoted

above went on to note that he had no hope of receiving comfort from his wife but that he

turned to God for solace: “I pray every night. My personal God doesn’t get mad at me. He

accepts that I have strengths and weaknesses.” Older insecurely-attached individuals who are

anxiously longing for intimacy and those who are keeping a partner at arm’s length might be

similarly resigned to not having needs met by their intimate partners, and their images of

intimate partnerships might be more similar than different. Because death is near, such people

would need to seek comfort in other ways.

Consistent with findings in studies of younger adults (for a review, see Mikulincer &

Shaver, 2007), security of attachment in this older sample was strongly linked with concurrent

wellbeing, including greater marital satisfaction, happier mood, and less frequent marital

conflicts. For men, greater security was also associated with less depressive symptomatology.
 23

These associations are not surprising. The feeling that one can rely on an intimate partner in

times of need is likely to foster a greater sense of wellbeing in the face of life’s daily stresses

and uncertainties, and this feeling is likely to inform the evaluation of how satisfied partners are

in their relationships. Conversely, lack of comfort with caregiving or careseeking, and the sense

that a partner cannot be relied on for support, might well contribute to more frequent conflicts

in the marriage, particularly as needs for support increase with age. It is also possible that

causal influences operate in the other direction – that is, being in a good marriage may

contribute to feelings of security.

Looking across time, security of attachment predicted wellbeing 2.5 years later. For

both men and women, more secure attachment predicted greater satisfaction with life, less

depressive symptomatology, and less negative affect as reported on the PANAS. The

moderate-to-large magnitude of these correlations (i.e., r’s from .29 to .52) is particularly

impressive considering the substantial separation in time of these two measurements. There

was no significant association between security of attachment and PANAS Positive Affect scale

scores. This may reflect something unique about positive affectivity or may be related to the

nature of positive affect in late life. Many of the more “activated” emotion terms included in

the PANAS scale used to tap positive affectivity, such as inspired, energetic, and joyful, are less

frequently endorsed by older adults than by younger people (Pressman & Cohen, 2012).

Of particular note, less secure attachment predicted poorer memory function for

women 2.5 years later. The association of attachment security and memory is noteworthy

given links found in other studies between loneliness and cognitive decline. One possible

explanation is that relationship insecurity, like loneliness, is a chronic stressor, and research has
 24

demonstrated links between stress and cognitive decline in older adults (Lupien, McEwen,

Gunnar & Heim, 2009). The association between attachment security and memory was not

found for men. Moreover, security of attachment was not associated with executive

functioning for men or for women, raising the possibility that the effects of insecure

attachment on cognition may be domain-specific. Replication is required to determine the

robustness of these findings. In addition, it is important to note that, because these cognitive,

affective and wellbeing measures were only assessed at one time point, temporal precedence

and the direction of effects cannot be established.

We hypothesized that insecure attachment to the partner might make it difficult for

older adults to weather the normal stresses of living. We further hypothesized that the wear-

and-tear of marital disagreements might be magnified in the context of insecure attachment

and thereby impact memory. The significant interaction that we found for the women in this

sample between attachment security and frequency of marital disagreements in predicting

memory function is consistent with these hypotheses. There was no significant link between

frequency of marital disagreements and memory for more securely-attached women but a

significant link for women who are less securely attached to their partners. This finding is

consistent with studies of younger adults in which attachment security buffers individuals from

the detrimental effects of relationship stressors such as infertility (Amir, Horesh & Lin-Stein,

1999) and the transition to parenthood (Simpson & Rholes, 2002).

A number of study limitations are important to bear in mind. Methodological issues may

be responsible for the absence of discrete factors for anxiety and avoidance and for the finding

that two insecurities related to anxious attachment – unrealistic fears about depending on and
 25

losing the other – were not prominent in these interviews. It is possible that (1) the interview

did not facilitate the expression of two discrete types of insecure attachment, (2) our coders

may not have been able to distinguish between these dimensions or between realistic and

unrealistic fears around dependency and loss, or (3) our scoring system may not have

accurately assessed these dimensions. Arguing against these methodological problems, the CRI

has been shown to elicit data on avoidant as well as anxious attachment in samples of younger

adults (Crowell, Treboux & Waters, 2002) and our coding system was adapted from the original

scoring system (Crowell & Owens, 1996).

Data on psychosocial functioning were missing to varying extents, but most particularly

in the Time 2 measures. Analyses revealed missingness to be largely at random, and use of FIML

for primary analyses allowed us to include all 162 participants. Measures at Time 1 and Time 2

(e.g., the CES-D and the GDS) tapped similar constructs but were not identical, so we were

unable to examine links between attachment security and changes in wellbeing, which will be

important to study in future research. All participants in this study were Caucasian and were

from two particular historical and demographic cohorts, pointing to the need for studies of

attachment security and wellbeing in other populations. Finally, a larger sample may increase

the power to detect a more complicated factor structure in late-life attachment.

An important strength of this study is the incorporation of diverse methods of

assessment. Both mood and frequency of marital disagreements were measured using daily

telephone interviews over 8 consecutive days. The interview approach has particular utility with

an elderly population that may not be accustomed to using electronic or computer devices to

report on daily events, and the 8-day sampling increases the reliability and accuracy of these
 26

assessments (Larson & Almeida, 1999). Security of attachment was rated from interview

transcripts, and marital satisfaction was assessed using self-report questionnaires, two distinct

sources of information that make the strong correlations between these variables particularly

impressive. We used a measure of memory functioning that is sensitive in distinguishing

normal retrieval deficits from true cognitive decline in the elderly. Longitudinal follow-up of

participants allowed for examination of wellbeing not just concurrent with measurement of

attachment security but 2.5 years later. Finally, the implicit measure of attachment security has

several advantages noted above. Although it is more labor-intensive than a paper-and-pencil

questionnaire and may thereby limit sample sizes, our raters’ ability to assess multiple aspects

of security of attachment reliably in about one hour per transcript suggests that use of semi-

structured interviews may be more feasible in the study of attachment than has been

previously considered.

In this study, we found that more secure mental models of marital relationships in late

life are linked directly with greater wellbeing, and that more secure models of attachment

appear to buffer older women from the potentially deleterious effects of marital conflict on

cognition. These findings challenge us to look more deeply into the mechanisms by which

models of attachment may “get under the skin” and into the brains of older adults. Moving

forward, it will be critical to identify exactly what it is about secure attachment that promotes

wellbeing as we age. Health-promoting mechanisms of attachment security may include those

that operate principally within individuals, such as the solace of believing that someone will be

available in times of need; and behaviors, motivations or attitudes toward a partner that

benefit both members of the dyad. Studies in which older couples are carefully observed
 27

discussing stage-salient attachment concerns such as end-of-life vulnerability and care are a

critical next step. The goal in these studies should be to identify experiences, behaviors,

motivations and attitudes that distinguish securely-attached from insecurely-attached

individuals in this important late-life context and to determine whether these distinctions

mediate the attachment-wellbeing linkage.

Researchers also need to be attentive to the possibility that these mechanisms may

operate in complex ways. Our findings regarding the moderating role of attachment on links

between marital conflict and memory are consistent with a stress-buffering hypothesis (Holt-

Lunstad et al., 2010) in which secure models of attachment promote adaptive behavioral or

neuroendocrine responses to acute or chronic stressors (e.g., marital conflict), thereby

buffering the deleterious influence of stressors on health. Such buffering mechanisms would

only be evident under stress. Whether they function directly or as protective factors, the effects

of attachment-related mechanisms may transcend the securely-attached individual to convey

additional benefit to the partner and/or the dyad. Because of the potential partner benefits of

secure mental models, it will be critical to utilize dyadic approaches, such as Actor-Partner

Interdependence Modeling (Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006), that can capture complex relational

processes. Deeper understanding of these mechanisms has the potential to inform

interventions that promote healthy aging. As social networks narrow in late life and intimate

partnerships are more central, security of romantic attachment may emerge as an increasingly

important factor in aging well.

 28

Author contributions

R. Waldinger designed the overall study in consultation with the other authors and oversaw

data collection. S. Cohen and R. Waldinger developed the coding system in consultation with J.

Crowell. S. Cohen supervised the coding of interviews under the supervision of J. Crowell. R.

Waldinger and M. Schulz performed the data analysis and interpretation. R. Waldinger drafted

the paper with the assistance of M. Schulz, and all co-authors provided critical revisions. All

authors approved the final version of the paper for submission.

 29

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank George Vaillant, Dorene Rentz, Laura Brumariu, Nina Rovinelli Heller

and four coders – Daniel Bateson, Muhannad Halassa, Sabrina Liu, and Christina Lau – for their

contributions to this project. This work was supported by grants R01 MH42248 and R01

AG034554.
 30

References

Acock A.C. (2005). Working with missing values. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1012–

1028.

Ainsworth, M.S. (1979). Infant-mother attachment. American Psychologist, 34, 932-937.

Ainsworth, M. S. (1985), Attachments across the life span. Bulletin of the New York Academy of

Medicine, 61, 792-811.

Amir, M., Horesh, N., & Lin-Stein, T. (1999). Infertility and adjustment in women: The effects of

attachment style and social support. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings,

6, 463-479.

Antonucci, T.C., Akiyama, H., & Takahashi, K. (2004). Attachment and close relationships across

the life span. Attachment & Human Development, 6, 353–370.

Barry, R.A. & Lawrence, E. (2013). “Don’t stand so close to me”: An attachment perspective of

disengagement and avoidance in marriage. Journal of Family Psychology 27(3): 484-494.

Bernardon, S., Babb, K. A., Hakim-Larson, J., & Gragg, M. (2011). Loneliness, attachment, and

the perception and use of social support in university students. Canadian Journal Of

Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement, 43, 40-51.

doi:10.1037/a0021199

Bowlby, J. (1969). Disruption of affectional bonds and its effects on behavior. Canada's Mental

Health Supplement, 59, 12.

Brandt, J., Spencer, M., Folstein, M. (1988). The telephone interview for cognitive status.

Neuropsychiatry, Neuropsychology and Behavioral Neurology, 1, 111-117.

 31

Caldwell, J. G., & Shaver, P. R. (2012). Exploring the cognitive-emotional pathways between

adult attachment and ego- resiliency. Individual Differences Research, 10, 141-152.

Carstensen, L.L. (1992). Social and emotional patterns in adulthood: Support for socioemotional

selectivity theory. Psychology and Aging, 7, 331–338. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.7.3.331

Cacioppo, J. T. & Hawkley, L.C. (2009). Perceived social isolation and cognition. Trends in

Cognitive Sciences, 13, 447-454.

Christensen, A. A., & Heavey, C. L. (1999). Interventions for couples. Annual Review of

Psychology, 50, 165-190. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.165

Cobb, R.J., Davila, J., & Bradbury, T.N. (2001). Attachment security and marital satisfaction: The

role of positive perceptions and social support. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 27, 1131–1143.

Collins, N.L. & Feeney, B.C. (2004). An Attachment Theory Perspective on Closeness and

Intimacy. In D.J. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of Closeness and Intimacy, 163–

188. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Craik, K.J.W. (1943). The Nature of Explanation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University

Press.

Crowell, J. A. & D. Treboux (1995). A review of adult attachment measures: Implications for

theory and research. Social Development, 4, 294-327.

Crowell, J. A. & G. Owens (1996). Current Relationship Interview and scoring system. State

University of New York at Stony Brook, Unpublished manuscript.

 32

Crowell, J.A., Treboux, D., & Waters, E. (2002). Stability of attachment representations: The

transition to marriage. Developmental Psychology, 38, 467-479.

Damman, M., Henkens, K., & Kalmijn, M. (2013). "Missing work after retirement: The role of

life histories in the retirement adjustment process." The Gerontologist.

doi: 10.1093/geront/gnt169, First published online: December 31, 2013

Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life

Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75.

doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13

Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national

index. American Psychologist, 55, 34–43. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.34

Fischbein, E., Deri, M., Nello, M., & Marino, M. (1985). The role of implicit models in solving

verbal problems in multiplication and division. Journal for Research in Mathematics

Education, 16, 3-17.

Freeston, M. H., & Pléchaty, M. (1997). Reconsiderations of the Locke-Wallace Marital

Adjustment Test: Is it still relevant for the 1990s? Psychological Reports, 81, 419-434.

doi:10.2466/PR0.81.6.419-434

Givertz, M., Woszidlo, A., Segrin, C., & Knudson, K. (2013). Direct and indirect effects of

attachment orientation on relationship quality and loneliness in married couples.

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 1096-1120.

Glueck, S., & Glueck, E. (1950). Unraveling Juvenile delinquency. Oxford England:

Commonwealth Fund.
 33

Gottman, J. (1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital processes and

marital outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Greenberg, J., Martens, A., Jonas, E., Eisenstadt, D., Pyszczynski, T., & Solomon, S. (2003).

Psychological defense in anticipation of anxiety: Eliminating the potential for anxiety

eliminates the effect of mortality salience on worldview defense. Psychological Science,

14, 516-519.

Grober, E., Hall, C, Lipton, R., Zonderman, A., Resnick, S., & Kawas, C. (2008). Memory

impairment, executive dysfunction, and intellectual decline in preclinical Alzheimer's

disease. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 2, 266-278.

Grober E., Sanders A. E., Hall C., & Lipton R. B. (2010). Free and cued selective reminding

identifies very mild dementia in primary care. Alzheimer Disease and Associated

Disorders, 24, 284–290.

Hawkley, L.C., & Cacioppo, J.T. (2010) Loneliness matters: A theoretical and empirical review of

consequences and mechanisms. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 40, 218-227.

Heath, C. W. (1945). What people are; a study of normal young men. Cambridge, MA

US: Harvard University Press.

Hedden, T., Mormino, E., Amariglio, R, Younger, A, Schultz, A., Becker, J.,...Rentz, D. (2012).

Cognitive profile of amyloid burden and white matter hyperintensities in cognitively

normal older adults. The Journal of Neuroscience, 46, 16233-16242.

Hinnen, C., Sanderman, R., & Sprangers, M. G. (2009). Adult attachment as mediator between

recollections of childhood and satisfaction with life. Clinical Psychology &

Psychotherapy, 16, 10-21. doi:10.1002/cpp.600

 34

Holt-Lunstad J., Smith T.B., & Layton J.B. (2010) Social relationships and mortality risk: A meta-

analytic review. PLoS Medicine, 7, e1000316. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316.

House, J.S., Landis, K.R., & Umberson, D. (1988) Social relationships and Health. Science, 241,

540-545.

Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1983). Mental Models: Toward a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference

and Consciousness. Cambridge MA US: Harvard University Press.

Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic Data Analysis. New York: Guilford

Larson, R. W. & Almeida, D. M. (1999). Emotional transmission in the daily lives of

families: A new paradigm for studying family process. Journal of Marriage & the Family,

61, 5-20.

Lewinsohn, P.M., Seeley, J.R., Roberts, R.E., & Allen, N.B. (1997). Center for

Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D) as a screening instrument for

depression among community-residing older adults. Psychology and Aging, 12, 277-

287.

Locke, H. J., & Wallace, K. M. (1959). Short marital-adjustment and prediction tests: Their

reliability and validity. Marriage & Family Living, 21, 251-255. doi:10.2307/348022

Lupien, S. J., McEwen, B., Gunnar, M., & Heim, C. (2009). Effects of stress throughout the

lifespan on the brain, behaviour and cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10, 434

-445.

Magai, C., Consedine, N. S., Gillespie, M., O'Neal, C., & Vilker, R. (2004). The differential roles of

early emotion socialization and adult attachment in adult emotional experience: Testing
 35

a mediator hypothesis. Attachment & Human Development, 6, 389-417.

doi:10.1080/1461673042000303118

Main, M., Kaplan, N, & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security of infancy, childhood, and adulthood: A move

to the level of representation, in Growing points of attachment theory and research, In

Bretherton and E. Waters (Eds) Monographs for the Society for Research in Child

Development, 50, 66-106.

Main, M. & Goldwyn, R.(1988). Adult attachment scoring and classification system.

University of California at Berkeley, Unpublished manuscript.

Meyers, S.A., & Landsberger, S.A. (2002). Direct and indirect pathways between adult

attachment style and marital satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 9, 159–172.

Mikulincer, M., Florian, V., & Hirschberger, G. (2003). The existential function of close

relationships: Introducing death into the science of love. Personality and Social

Psychology Review, 7, 20-40.

Mikulincer, M. & Shaver, P.R. (2007) Attachment in Adulthood: Structure, Dynamics, and

Change. New York: Guilford.

Mikulincer, M. & Shaver, P. R. (2012). Helplessness: A hidden liability associated with failed

defenses against awareness of death. In: Meaning, mortality, and choice: The social

psychology of existential concerns. P. R. Shaver and M. Mikulincer, eds. Washington, DC

US, American Psychological Association: 37-53.

Monsch, A. U., Bondi, M. W., Butters, N., & Salmon, D. P. (1992). Comparisons of verbal fluency

tasks in the detection of dementia of the Alzheimer type. Archives of Neurology, 49,

1253-1258. doi:10.1001/archneur.1992.00530360051017
 36

Morris J.C., Heyman A., Mohs R.C., Hughes J.P., van Belle G., Fillenbaum G., & Clark C. (1989)

The Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease (CERAD). Part I. Clinical

and neuropsychological assessment of Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology, 39, 1159– 1165

Newman, L. M., Trivedi, M., Bendlin, B., Ries, M., & Johnson, S. (2007). The relationship

between gray matter morphometry and neuropsychological performance in a large

sample of cognitively healthy adults. Brain Imaging and Behavior, 1, 3-10.

Owens, G., Crowell, J., Pan, H., Treboux, D., O’Connor, E., & Waters, E. (1995). The prototype

hypothesis and the origins of attachment working models: Adult relationships with

parents and romantic partners. In E. Waters, B. Vaughn, G. Posada, & K. Kondo-Ikemura

(Eds.), Caregiving, cultural, and cognitive perspectives on secure-base behavior and

working models: New growing points of attachment theory and research. Monographs

of the Society for Research in Child Development, 60, 216-233

Pardon, M., & Rattray, I. (2008). What do we know about the long-term consequences of stress

on ageing and the progression of age-related neurodegenerative

disorders? Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 32, 1103-1120.

doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2008.03.005

Pavot, W. G., Diener, E., Colvin, C., & Sandvik, E. (1991). Further validation of the Satisfaction

With Life Scale: Evidence for the cross-method convergence of well-being

measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57, 149-161.

doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa5701_17
 37

Pietromonaco, P.R., DeBuse, C.J., & Powers, S.I. (2013) Does attachment get under the

skin?: Adult romantic attachment and cortisol responses to stress. Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 22, 63-68.

Pressman, S.D., & Cohen, S. (2012). Positive emotion words and longevity in famous

deceased psychologists. Health Psychology, 31, 297-305

Radloff, L.S. (1977) The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general

population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385-401.

Ravitz, P., Maunder, R., Hunter, J., Sthankiya, B., & Lancee, W. (2010). Adult attachment

measures: A 25-year review. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 69, 419-432.

doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2009.08.006

Sandvik E., Diener E., & Seidlitz L. (1993). Subjective well-being: The convergence and stability

of self- report and non-self-report measures. Journal of Personality, 61, 317–342.

Scharfe, E., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Reliability and stability of adult attachment

patterns. Personal Relationships, 1, 23–43.

Simpson, J.A., Rholes, W.S., & Nelligan, J.S. (1992). Support seeking and support giving within

couples in an anxiety provoking situation: The role of attachment styles. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 434–446.

Simpson, J.A. & Rholes, W.S. (2002). Attachment orientations, marriage, and the transition to

parenthood. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 622-628.

 38

Tabachnick, B. G & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed). HarperCollins

College Publishers, New York, NY

Tilvis, R.S., Kahonen-Vare, M.H., Jolkkonen, J., Valvane, J., Pitkala, K.H., & Strandberg, T.E.

(2004). Predictors of cognitive decline and mortality of aged people over a 10-year

period. Journal of Gerontology: Medical Sciences, 59A, 268-274.

Treboux, D., Crowell, J. A., & Waters, E. (2004). When 'new' meets 'old': Configurations of

adult attachment representations and their implications for marital

functioning. Developmental Psychology, 40, 295-314. doi:10.1037/00121649.40.2.295

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction

fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90, 293-315. doi:10.1037/0033-

295X.90.4.293

Vaillant, G. E. (1977), Adaptation to Life, Little, Brown, Boston, MA

Veenhoven, R., & Kalmijn, W. (2005). Inequality-adjusted happiness in nations: Egalitarianism

and utilitarianism married in a new index of societal performance. Journal of Happiness

Studies, 6, 421-455. doi:10.1007/s10902-005-8857-5

Vogt, T.M., Mullooly, J.P., Ernst, D., Pope, C.R., & Hollis, J.F. (1992) Social networks as

predictors of ischemic heart disease, cancer, stroke, and hypertension: Incidence,

survival, and mortality. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 45, 659-666.

Waldinger, R. J. & Schulz, M. S.(2010) What’s love got to do with it?: Social connections,

perceived health stressors, and daily mood in married octogenarians. Psychology &
 39

Aging, 25, 422-431. PMID: 20545426

Waters, E., Merrick, S., Treboux, D., Crowell, J., & Albersheim, L. (2000). Attachment

security in infancy and early adulthood: A twenty-year longitudinal study. Child

Development, 71, 684–689.

Waters, H. & Waters, E. (2006), The attachment working models concept: Among other things,

we build script-like representations of secure base experiences. Attachment and Human

Development, 8, 185-197.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief

measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063

Westen, D., Blagov, P. S., Harenski, K., Kilts, C., & Hamann, S. (2006). Neural bases of motivated

reasoning: An fMRI study of emotional constraints on partisan political judgment in the

2004 U.S. presidential election. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 1947-

1958, doi:10.1162/jocn.2006.18.11.1947,PMID 17069484

Wilson, R. S., Krueger, K.R., Arnold, S.E., Schneider, J.A., Kelly, J. F., Barnes, L.L.,...Bennett, D.A.

(2007). Loneliness and risk of Alzheimer disease. Archives of General Psychiatry, 64, 234-

240.

Wrzus, C., Hanel, M., Wagner, J., & Neyer, F.J. (2013). Social network changes and life events

across the life span: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 13, 53-80.

doi:10.1037/a0028601
 40

Yang, Y. (2008). Social inequalities in happiness in the United States, 1972 to 2004: An age-

period-cohort analysis. American Sociological Review, 73, 204–226.

doi:10.1177/000312240807300202

Yesavage J.A., Brink T.L., Rose T.L., Lum O., Huang V., Adey M.B., & Leirer V.O. (1983).

Development and validation of a geriatric depression screening scale: A preliminary

report. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 17, 37-49,

Zhang, F., & Labouvie-Vief, G. (2004). Stability and fluctuation in adult attachment style over a

6-year period. Attachment and Human Development, 6, 419-437.

Zimmerman M. A., & Arunkumar R. (1994). Resiliency research: Implications for schools and

policy. Society for Research in Child Development, 8, 1–19

 41

Table 1
Means (SD) of Psychosocial Functioning Variables

Men Women
Time 1 assessments
Marital satisfaction 124.8 (23.0) 123.2 (26.3)
N=81 N=81

CES-D 8.52 (7.17) 9.29 (6.95)

N=81 N=77

Daily disagreements 0.13 (0.17) 0.17 (0.20)

with partner x 8 days N=78 N=77

Daily mood x 8 days 5.78 (0.91) 5.91 (0.85)

N=78 N=77

Time 2 assessments
PANAS Positive Affect 34.62 (6.72) 34.82 (6.74)
N=61 N=49

PANAS Negative Affect 16.51 (6.17) 15.90 (6.47)

N=61 N=49

Geriatric Depression 5.78 (4.60) 4.50 (4.19)

Scale N=65 N=56

Satisfaction with life 27.37 (5.57) 27.08 (5.82)

N=60 N=51

Memory (FCSRT) 46.91 (2.08) 45.83 (3.82)

N=64 N=53

Executive functioning -1.03 (1.00) -0.82 (1.42)

N=64 N=56
 42

Table 2
Pearson Correlations among Psychosocial Functioning Variables*

WOMEN Marital CES-D Daily Daily PANAS PANAS Geriatric Satisfaction Memory Executive
r(p) Satisfaction disagreements Mood Positive Negative Depression with life (FCSRT) functioning
MEN r(p) Affect Affect Scale
-.25 -.45 .53 -.05 -.54 -.35 .71 .33 .06
Marital --
(.03) (<.001) (<.001) (.74) (<.001) (.008) (<.001) (.02) (.63)
satisfaction
CES-D -.49 .10 -.30 -.30 .25 .61 -.31 -.09 -.09
--
(<.001) (.40) (.01) (.04) (.07) (<.001) (.02) (.49) (.53)
Daily
disagreements -.50 .26 -.24 .06 .39 .19 -.37 -.27 .12
with partner x 8 --
(<.001) (.03) (.04) (.67) (.005) (.14) (.005) (.05) (.38)
days

Daily mood x 8 .38 -.31 -.16 .12 -.46 -.32 .49 .10 -.03
days --
(.002) (.01) (.17) (.38) (<.001) (.01) (<.001) (.44) (.81)
PANAS Positive .25 -.45 .04 .39 -.21 -.47 .21 .05 .13
Affect --
(.05) (<.001) (.75) (.003) (.14) (.002) (.14) (.76) (.38)
PANAS Negative -.36 .23 .21 -.13 -.17 .39 -.35 -.18 .19
Affect --
(.006) (.07) (.11) (.32) (.19) (.007) (.01) (.19) (.17)
Geriatric -.17
Depression -.49 .63 .21 -.37 -.50 .57 -.42 -.40
-- (.21)
Scale (<.001) (<.001) (.09) (.004) (<.001) (<.001) (.003) (.006)

Satisfaction .46 -.39 -.05 .05 .28 -.26 -.39 .34 .08
with life --
(<.001) (.003) (.71) (.68) (.04) (.05) (.003) (.02) (.57)
Memory .001 -.13 .17 .05 .02 -.18 -.12 .18 .17
(FCSRT) --
(.99) (.31) (.19) (.71) (.85) (.17) (.34) (.17) (.23)
Executive .14 -.15 .05 .11 .26 -.07 -.18 .19 .16
functioning --
(.27) (.24) (.69) (.39) (.05) (.59) (.16) (.15) (.21)
*Correlations for men are on the bottom-left, and correlations for women are on the top-right
 43

Table 3
Pearson Correlations between Security of Attachment and Psychosocial Functioning

Security of Attachment
Men Women
r (p) r (p)
Time 1 Assessments
Marital satisfaction .61 .73
(<.001) (<.001)

CES-D -.43 -.14

(<.001) (.22)

Daily disagreements -.30 -.44

with partner x 8 days (.01) (<.001)

Daily mood x 8 days .26 .30

(.03) (.01)

Time 2 Assessments
PANAS Positive Affect .20 -.01
(.11) (.94)

PANAS Negative Affect -.29 -.42

(.02) (.002)

Geriatric Depression -.34 -.38

Scale (.006) (.004)

Satisfaction with life .49 .52

(<.001) (<.001)

Memory (FCSRT) -.12 .41

(.34) (.003)

Executive functioning .11 -.08

(.37) (.55)
 44

Table 4
Regression Analysis Predicting Memory Scores

Women Men
B SE B β R2 B SE B β R2
Age -0.11 0.06 -0.21† -.02 .08 -.04
Security of attachment -3.92 2.21 -1.12† .40 1.61 .20
Frequency of marital
-28.37 10.80 -1.51** 4.43 8.76 .35
disagreements
Security of attachment X
frequency of marital 4.06 1.71 1.52* .33 -.39 1.28 -.27 .03
disagreements

†
p < .10 * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001